Op-Ed: Prop 8 goes against God’s love for every person http://www.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/op-ed-prop-8-goes-against-gods-love-for-every-person/ Religious voters should vote against Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that would eliminate same-sex unions in the state, because it discriminates against gays and lesbians and runs counter to the ethos of love that the Bible teaches, argues Rabbi David Ellenson. en-us uheilman@jta.org Copyright 2008 2008-11-03T;22:29:00-05:00 Comment by Jacob H. Bechtel jake_iv@juno.com I must take exception to virtually everything the good rabbi said in his essay, and to his implications that anyone who disagrees with him is a biggot intent on discriminating against homosexuals.  “It just ain’t so.” Proposition 8 and a similar ballot measure in Arizona do not discriminate against homosexuals.  Neither measure makes any attempt to prohibit same-sex unions. Both propositions simply restrict the use of the common-law “marriage” contract to one man-one woman unions. If the good rabbi will read his own jewish marriage contract he will find that it also defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman.  Both the common-law “marriage” and our jewish contract set forth rights and responsibilities of the contracting partners based on gender.  They simply cannot be applied to same-sex unions. The Constitutional amendments do not forbid same-sex unions; they simply define the existing common-law contract as applicable only to one man + one woman unions.  They make no effort to deny same-sex couples the right to enter into a binding contract that defines their union.  They simply say that the common-law contract of “marriage” cannot be used. Anyone of legal age can enter into a legal contract that is binding so long as fraud or illegal acts are not incorporated into the contract.  If the good rabbi is offended that many social and job related benifits are currently not applicable to same-sex unions he needs to address that problem, not try to redefine marriage.  Might I suggest that he lend his not to shabby skills to a movement to redefine the term “spouse” to include the legally recognized life-partner of the named primary party.  Such a move would likely meet with a lot more success than trying to redefine “marriage” I must take exception to virtually everything the good rabbi said in his essay, and to his implications that anyone who disagrees with him is a biggot intent on discriminating against homosexuals.  “It just ain’t so.”

Proposition 8 and a similar ballot measure in Arizona do not discriminate against homosexuals.  Neither measure makes any attempt to prohibit same-sex unions. Both propositions simply restrict the use of the common-law “marriage” contract to one man-one woman unions.

If the good rabbi will read his own jewish marriage contract he will find that it also defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman.  Both the common-law “marriage” and our jewish contract set forth rights and responsibilities of the contracting partners based on gender.  They simply cannot be applied to same-sex unions.

The Constitutional amendments do not forbid same-sex unions; they simply define the existing common-law contract as applicable only to one man + one woman unions.  They make no effort to deny same-sex couples the right to enter into a binding contract that defines their union.  They simply say that the common-law contract of “marriage” cannot be used.

Anyone of legal age can enter into a legal contract that is binding so long as fraud or illegal acts are not incorporated into the contract. 

If the good rabbi is offended that many social and job related benifits are currently not applicable to same-sex unions he needs to address that problem, not try to redefine marriage.  Might I suggest that he lend his not to shabby skills to a movement to redefine the term “spouse” to include the legally recognized life-partner of the named primary party.  Such a move would likely meet with a lot more success than trying to redefine “marriage”

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Charles Emelogu charlesemelog@yahoo.com I find Mr Ellenson’s assertions sad and worrisome. Who else will the society accomodate..those who desire marriage with pigs, sheep, dog etc? God loves all people but He calls certain people ‘wicked’; these arepeople who pervert God’s laws and wilfully but logically choose to disobey Him, thereby rebelling against Him. Today it is same sex, tomorrow it would be man abd animal wedded in the Church or Synagogue all in the name of liberty. Why did God destroy Sodom & Gomorra? Mr Ellenson should remember that God’s love also carries judgement and terrible wrath with it. Check the Bible; Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrors, blood sheds etc. Charles Emelogu, Lagos. I find Mr Ellenson’s assertions sad and worrisome. Who else will the society accomodate..those who desire marriage with pigs, sheep, dog etc? God loves all people but He calls certain people ‘wicked’; these arepeople who pervert God’s laws and wilfully but logically choose to disobey Him, thereby rebelling against Him. Today it is same sex, tomorrow it would be man abd animal wedded in the Church or Synagogue all in the name of liberty. Why did God destroy Sodom & Gomorra?
Mr Ellenson should remember that God’s love also carries judgement and terrible wrath with it. Check the Bible; Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrors, blood sheds etc.
Charles Emelogu, Lagos.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Abbie Kenyon akenyon947@students.deltacollege.edu Food for Thought: In regards to Proposition 8, what is most important, what humankind/non-practicing Jewry/ Hebreews think, or what Adonai Elihenu thinks according to the Tenach/torah/Bible on the subject of marriage/matrimony? ????? Torah: Leviticus, and Deuteronomy/Devarim, Psalms, Proverbs/Writings of the Prophets or Christian Testament: St. Paul to the Romans, the book of Hebrews St John, St James Food for Thought:
In regards to Proposition 8, what is most important, what humankind/non-practicing Jewry/ Hebreews think, or what Adonai Elihenu thinks according to the Tenach/torah/Bible on the subject of marriage/matrimony? ?????

Torah: Leviticus, and Deuteronomy/Devarim, Psalms, Proverbs/Writings of the Prophets

or Christian Testament: St. Paul to the Romans, the book of Hebrews St John, St James

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Dawn B chickndixie@yahoo.com Matthew Skurdahl #1 Homosexuality and the way most Americans feel about it has nothing to do with religion...it is just plain disgusting to the average American whether religious or not so this issue has nothing to do with a violation of separation of church/state. #2 Stating most people are repulsed by homosexuality is a fact. #3 There is no concrete evidence there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality either. It’s just plain ridiculous to think a person is born this way and an excuse for homosexuals to blame something or someone for there perversion. #4 Could you please refrain from imposing your viewpoints on heterosexuals? Your anal opening was made for elimination of waste only. #5 Real love is showing someone the truth no matter how much it may hurt to start with. The truth is, God never intended for two men or two women to have sex or marry. God is your creator and he created us-men and women to go together sexually by the shape of our sexual organs. How can anyone deny that? #6 Divorce is not in God’s plan either. It is something he hates. #7 Homosexuals fight too. They are almost never monogamous. They have multiple partners even when they are living as a couple. Most homosexuals don’t know the meaning of monogamy. #8 God created all in his likeness and God isn’t gay. So no, he didn’t create you gay. You need to be careful about the things you say because you could cross a line of no return.The belief that God made you that way is just an excuse to stay the way you are. But in the end God will have the last say. #9 I don’t hate homosexuals even though it may sound that way. I hate the act itself, but the person I could never hate. I feel for anyone that has lived their life so backwards from the majority of the rest of the world. Yes, you are a minority. I don’t feel anyone should die because they have this problem. They deserve to make a living and if they work hard to get somewhere in life they deserve the same rights as anyone else. But, I draw the line when it comes to saying that homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Marriage is God ordained between a man and a woman. If two homosexuals want to live together for the rest of their lives, let them call it something else. That is God’s word for a man and a woman and that will never be changed. How dare you to go against the creator of all and define marriage as two homosexuals. If you think about it you would realize how silly it is. You are so against God’s laws, yet you want to be a part of his plan of marriage. Don’t you think that is sort of ridiculous? Call it something else if you want, but you can’t call it marriage if God didn’t ordain it himself. #4 Matthew Skurdahl

#1 Homosexuality and the way most Americans feel about it has nothing to do with religion...it is just plain disgusting to the average American whether religious or not so this issue has nothing to do with a violation of separation of church/state.

#2 Stating most people are repulsed by homosexuality is a fact.

#3 There is no concrete evidence there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality either. It’s just plain ridiculous to think a person is born this way and an excuse for homosexuals to blame something or someone for there perversion.

#4 Could you please refrain from imposing your viewpoints on heterosexuals? Your anal opening was made for elimination of waste only.

#5 Real love is showing someone the truth no matter how much it may hurt to start with. The truth is, God never intended for two men or two women to have sex or marry. God is your creator and he created us-men and women to go together sexually by the shape of our sexual organs. How can anyone deny that?

#6 Divorce is not in God’s plan either. It is something he hates.

#7 Homosexuals fight too. They are almost never monogamous. They have multiple partners even when they are living as a couple. Most homosexuals don’t know the meaning of monogamy.

#8 God created all in his likeness and God isn’t gay. So no, he didn’t create you gay. You need to be careful about the things you say because you could cross a line of no return.The belief that God made you that way is just an excuse to stay the way you are. But in the end God will have the last say.

#9 I don’t hate homosexuals even though it may sound that way. I hate the act itself, but the person I could never hate. I feel for anyone that has lived their life so backwards from the majority of the rest of the world. Yes, you are a minority. I don’t feel anyone should die because they have this problem. They deserve to make a living and if they work hard to get somewhere in life they deserve the same rights as anyone else. But, I draw the line when it comes to saying that homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Marriage is God ordained between a man and a woman. If two homosexuals want to live together for the rest of their lives, let them call it something else. That is God’s word for a man and a woman and that will never be changed.
How dare you to go against the creator of all and define marriage as two homosexuals. If you think about it you would realize how silly it is. You are so against God’s laws, yet you want to be a part of his plan of marriage. Don’t you think that is sort of ridiculous? Call it something else if you want, but you can’t call it marriage if God didn’t ordain it himself.

#4

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by matthew skurdahl matt041566@yahoo.com Lots of problems with the first couple of comments posted here (especially PCS) #1.  Putting religious dogma into the CA constitution is a clear violation of the separation of church / state. #2.  Stating that most people are repulsed by homosexuality is an opinion only, and perjorative. #3.  No evidence that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.  Also, the analogy is irrelevant.  Turnaround:  should we also amend the CA constution to prohibit alcoholics from marrying?—this would probably be more beneficial for society than a ban on gay marriage - less domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. #4.  No one is asking for your “affirmation, support,” or anything else other than that you refrain from imposing your viewpoints upon us.  If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, then don’t. #5. Reall tough to understand how PCS thinks that it is showing “love” by denying someone fundamental rights an treating them as second class citizens. #6.  If “Marriage” were the issue here than this proposed amendment would include a ban on divorce.  #7.  I’m “repulsed” by a lot of heterosexual behavior—conceiving kids before the parents are ready (or the quickie marriage to cover up conception before marriage), divorce, spousal abuse, etc.  This doesn’t give me the right to tell them they shouldn’t marry. #8.  “God created me” gay.  I was raised by a Lutheran minister and taught nothing but the straight lifestyle.  After over a decade of struggling I finally accepted that God made me just the way that I am, and that the very best I could do with my life was to share this with someone else that “God made” the same way.  What’s so hard to understand about this? How ironic that the Mormon church—the sponsors of polygamy—would dare to tell Californians how they should define marriage.  That the irony of this is lost on the “Yes on 8” people is simply amazing. Lots of problems with the first couple of comments posted here (especially PCS)

#1.  Putting religious dogma into the CA constitution is a clear violation of the separation of church / state.
#2.  Stating that most people are repulsed by homosexuality is an opinion only, and perjorative.
#3.  No evidence that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.  Also, the analogy is irrelevant.  Turnaround:  should we also amend the CA constution to prohibit alcoholics from marrying?—this would probably be more beneficial for society than a ban on gay marriage - less domestic abuse, child abuse, etc.
#4.  No one is asking for your “affirmation, support,” or anything else other than that you refrain from imposing your viewpoints upon us.  If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, then don’t.
#5. Reall tough to understand how PCS thinks that it is showing “love” by denying someone fundamental rights an treating them as second class citizens.
#6.  If “Marriage” were the issue here than this proposed amendment would include a ban on divorce. 
#7.  I’m “repulsed” by a lot of heterosexual behavior—conceiving kids before the parents are ready (or the quickie marriage to cover up conception before marriage), divorce, spousal abuse, etc.  This doesn’t give me the right to tell them they shouldn’t marry.
#8.  “God created me” gay.  I was raised by a Lutheran minister and taught nothing but the straight lifestyle.  After over a decade of struggling I finally accepted that God made me just the way that I am, and that the very best I could do with my life was to share this with someone else that “God made” the same way.  What’s so hard to understand about this?

How ironic that the Mormon church—the sponsors of polygamy—would dare to tell Californians how they should define marriage.  That the irony of this is lost on the “Yes on 8” people is simply amazing.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Avrom Faderman avrom@avromandina.net I’m a bit loath to push my own content on a public web site, but you can find a personal story (mine) about Proposition 8 here: http://www.avromroyfaderman.com/2008/11/on-a-completely-different-note/ I’m a bit loath to push my own content on a public web site, but you can find a personal story (mine) about Proposition 8 here:

http://www.avromroyfaderman.com/2008/11/on-a-completely-different-note/

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Larry Mark jewfilm@aol.com Thanks for a great essay.  I hope more religious leaders will speak out for love and equality.  The posted comments above are frighteningly sad. Thanks for a great essay.  I hope more religious leaders will speak out for love and equality.  The posted comments above are frighteningly sad.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Amir Bem amir@pregnancy-info.net Why does Mr. Ellenson need to tell us that he is ‘painfully’ aware of God’s prohabition against homosexuality?  Why does it pain him?  Perhaps he feels that as an enlightened mortal he knows better than God.  I’m amazed that a man can parade around with the title of ‘Rabbi’ and reject a basic tenet of his own religion.  Absolutely shameful! Why does Mr. Ellenson need to tell us that he is ‘painfully’ aware of God’s prohabition against homosexuality?  Why does it pain him?  Perhaps he feels that as an enlightened mortal he knows better than God.  I’m amazed that a man can parade around with the title of ‘Rabbi’ and reject a basic tenet of his own religion.  Absolutely shameful!

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by docgfd gdekornfel@fairpoint.net What’s sadder yet is Mr. Fein’s post. First of all, there is no discrimination here. What there is, in fact, is no accomodation. Why should something as Biblical and sacred as marriage be altered just to accomodate a group of folks who live a different lifestyle? Why should their choice of a way of life intrude upon a long-standing tradition, and be forced down everybody else’s throats? Next, there is no ‘they’ in associating alcoholism with homosexuality. Althought the first poster did mention it, it was obviously not in a relational sense, although that is what Mr. Fein attempted to create.  Homosexuality is not a “normal human behavior;” the Bible says so. And best of all: “While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators.” No negative consequences?  Ever heard of AIDS?  So, besides IV drug abuse, guess what one of the main modes of that nasty little virus being transmitted is? Further, if you paid attention to my post, it is the sin that should be hated, not the sinner.  I have several patients that are gay and even socialize with them on occasion. What part of that escaped you? Instead, you use terms such as ‘beligerant’ and ‘arrogant.’ Knock yerself out with your self-righteousness: that only proves my point on apostasy.  I’ll pray for you. What’s sadder yet is Mr. Fein’s post. First of all, there is no discrimination here. What there is, in fact, is no accomodation. Why should something as Biblical and sacred as marriage be altered just to accomodate a group of folks who live a different lifestyle? Why should their choice of a way of life intrude upon a long-standing tradition, and be forced down everybody else’s throats? Next, there is no ‘they’ in associating alcoholism with homosexuality. Althought the first poster did mention it, it was obviously not in a relational sense, although that is what Mr. Fein attempted to create.  Homosexuality is not a “normal human behavior;” the Bible says so.
And best of all: “While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators.”
No negative consequences?  Ever heard of AIDS?  So, besides IV drug abuse, guess what one of the main modes of that nasty little virus being transmitted is?
Further, if you paid attention to my post, it is the sin that should be hated, not the sinner.  I have several patients that are gay and even socialize with them on occasion. What part of that escaped you? Instead, you use terms such as ‘beligerant’ and ‘arrogant.’ Knock yerself out with your self-righteousness: that only proves my point on apostasy.  I’ll pray for you.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by John jnadalet@cox.net Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society.  Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came!  A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marry couples or are these better described as civil unions?  If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender?  Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage. A vote for proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will.  This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution. Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society.  Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came!  A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marry couples or are these better described as civil unions?  If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender?  Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage.

A vote for proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will. 

This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by John jnadalet@cox.net Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society.  Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came!  A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marrying couples or are these better described as civil unions?  If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender?  Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage. A vote against proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will.  This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution. Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society.  Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came!  A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marrying couples or are these better described as civil unions?  If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender?  Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage.

A vote against proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will. 

This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by Michael Hanna- Fein Michael Fein I find the first two comments to be very sad indeed. The commentators actually believe it is perfectly fine to discriminate against an entire group of people who simply want the same rights they have, to love the person of their choice.  What’s worse they compare it to alcoholism and admits that God creates them as well. But they believe we have the obligation to turn our backs on these people because of their personal revulsion to these individuals. Alcoholism is a disease that can and should be treated. Homosexuality is another form of perfectly normal human behaviour that harms no one. While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators. I find the first two comments to be very sad indeed. The commentators actually believe it is perfectly fine to discriminate against an entire group of people who simply want the same rights they have, to love the person of their choice.  What’s worse they compare it to alcoholism and admits that God creates them as well. But they believe we have the obligation to turn our backs on these people because of their personal revulsion to these individuals.

Alcoholism is a disease that can and should be treated. Homosexuality is another form of perfectly normal human behaviour that harms no one. While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators.

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by docgfd gdekornfel@fairpoint.net Sadly, the Rabi’s comments are typical of the ever-increasing apostasy written about in the book of Revelations as we near the end-times.  Similar to the ‘feel good’ religion so prevalent in this modern society, the Rabi is attempting to mold the Bible into something that fits his human logic and emotions. The Bible is non-negotiable, and that includes the passage in Leviticus quoted in the article. It is quite true that the Lord is a loving God.  However, it is also true that he is...the Lord.  The Lord made the rules and we as followers are meant to obey them.  Today, many use the cliche of ‘if it feels good, do it,’ and add on ‘don’t worry about it, God will let it slide because, after all, He’s a sport and loves you,’ and this is exactly why the US and the world are in the mess we all find ourselves in today. And of course, the modern-day knee-jerk reaction to anyone adhering strictly to the writings in the Bible is to immediately accuse them of being biased and worse, being guilty of a hate-crime.  Slowly but steadily, the world is drawing further and further away from God, using human logic to rationalize fictionalizing the Bible. Is there hate involved by being in favor of Proposition 8? You betcha! Except where the Rabi errs is that the hate is towards the sin............not the sinner! Sadly, the Rabi’s comments are typical of the ever-increasing apostasy written about in the book of Revelations as we near the end-times.  Similar to the ‘feel good’ religion so prevalent in this modern society, the Rabi is attempting to mold the Bible into something that fits his human logic and emotions. The Bible is non-negotiable, and that includes the passage in Leviticus quoted in the article.

It is quite true that the Lord is a loving God.  However, it is also true that he is...the Lord.  The Lord made the rules and we as followers are meant to obey them.  Today, many use the cliche of ‘if it feels good, do it,’ and add on ‘don’t worry about it, God will let it slide because, after all, He’s a sport and loves you,’ and this is exactly why the US and the world are in the mess we all find ourselves in today.
And of course, the modern-day knee-jerk reaction to anyone adhering strictly to the writings in the Bible is to immediately accuse them of being biased and worse, being guilty of a hate-crime.  Slowly but steadily, the world is drawing further and further away from God, using human logic to rationalize fictionalizing the Bible.
Is there hate involved by being in favor of Proposition 8? You betcha! Except where the Rabi errs is that the hate is towards the sin............not the sinner!

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Comment by pcs xmldoctor@gmail.com Better we should work to change the attitudes of hatred into a more appropriate and constructive response to immorality, rather than change/weaken the moral structure of our society to accommodate immorality simply for the sake of unconditional inclusion. The revulsion that a majority of people feel when confronted with homosexuality is no different from what we feel about other moral issues. This is a natural part of us, just as God created us. It is argued that there is a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but there are equally strong (if not stronger) arguments for genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Do we say that God created alcoholics and homosexuals, so as a society we must embrace, affirm and support their respective behaviors and lifestyles? We must certainly reach out to these segments of the population with love and compassion, but we do not need to affirm or support poor lifestyle choices or restructure our social values to accommodate and support them.  I do not understand how this is interpreted as a hateful point of view, when this is simply a necessity for preserving the moral fabric of our society. And separate from that, have we learned nothing at all about responding to the Word of God with “yes, but...”? Better we should work to change the attitudes of hatred into a more appropriate and constructive response to immorality, rather than change/weaken the moral structure of our society to accommodate immorality simply for the sake of unconditional inclusion.

The revulsion that a majority of people feel when confronted with homosexuality is no different from what we feel about other moral issues. This is a natural part of us, just as God created us. It is argued that there is a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but there are equally strong (if not stronger) arguments for genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Do we say that God created alcoholics and homosexuals, so as a society we must embrace, affirm and support their respective behaviors and lifestyles?

We must certainly reach out to these segments of the population with love and compassion, but we do not need to affirm or support poor lifestyle choices or restructure our social values to accommodate and support them.  I do not understand how this is interpreted as a hateful point of view, when this is simply a necessity for preserving the moral fabric of our society.

And separate from that, have we learned nothing at all about responding to the Word of God with “yes, but...”?

]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00